I have positive thoughts about veganism. I don’t believe it should be mandated, but I would like for a law to exist where all companies that make meat are required to go from 100% meat to 99.5% meat, .5% plant protein. And then increase the plant percentage by .5% per year so in 200 years, we aren’t killing animals for food anymore. I’ve asked 3 people their thought on this idea, and they all like it, so I think it can take off.
When homosexuals were killed, it was a product of the time. When homosexuality was legalized, the times changed. When conquering other countries is the norm, it’s a product of the time. When conquering other countries doesn’t happen anymore, then the times have changed. But Israel has owned its land for a long time now. A one state solution for Israel will produce the same effect as a one state solution for Palestine.
The difference between thieves robbing and countries invading is every country to this day is to an extent built on stolen land. All the countries where Rome invaded got independence and stole the land from the Romans. The same is true for China. The same is true for America and the African countries. In a world where everyone is a thief, theft is legal. In a world where stealing land is the norm, stealing land is legal. The UN tried to put a stop to it since stealing land usually results in death. But it’s always happened, and it probably will continue to happen unless the world becomes one nation and then there are no more wars over land because everyone would live in the same country. But we are going to have to very homogenized at that point and the world is too different to be the same country unfortunately.
If you’re in agreement with me, then why do you want Israel to get completely returned to Palestine? Me personally, I’m an American so I don’t care what happens to foreign countries. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would have a bias. But I’m neither. A one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will produce the same result whether that one state is Israel or Palestine. The only difference would be the flag and the name of the country. It’s not like calling the area Palestine is going to result in the land being less Jewish or calling the land Israel will result in people being less Muslim.
“ Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.”
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?
Borders are very fluid over the course of thousands of years. It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other.
I agree. I would go even so far as to support open borders for exclusively blue counties and the standard status quo process for exclusively red counties. If blue counties don't want to deport undocumented immigrants, they can have them. All 1.2 billion of them (the number of people that would come into America if America was the first country to open up it's borders).
Life in jail isn’t enough, but the death penalty doesn’t help the victims.
That’s why I propose the Stanton penalty for murderers and rapists; this consists of 3 things:
1) Life in jail.
2)Hard labor fixing the roads of the greatest country the simulation overlords ever created so America can have the best infrastructure in the world. Rape victims get $200,000 in restitution that the hard labor generates and the families of murder victims get $250,000.
3) Surgical castration, as a deterrent.
If there is a false conviction, the accused gets freed and paid for their trauma. But if they are guilty, then they absolutely deserve the toughest punishment short of death.
Nobody is advocating for FORCING the poor to sell their organs. But it should be a right. The poor know what is better for them than the government. Their body, their choice.
Gays and Bisexual men are more likely to get HIV from their promiscuous sex. This would be akin to saying that "On average, one is better off not being promiscuous" which is accurate.
Transgenders often have to pay for a surgery that's expensive. But this is akin to saying, "On average, one is better off not needing glasses" because glasses are also an expense.
I want a country where anti-communist America loving undocumented immigrants are allowed to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns while sipping on a cold beer with some hot 18-year-old supermodels with big tits and ass in the background and a kickass pickup truck that has a bumper sticker that reads, "Stanton 2020, Make America Debt Free" that they don't have to pay property tax on.
->Coerce speech how?
By censoring words they don't like.
->I don't see the problem with this.
Because your an SJW.
->Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If someone uses a word to degrade you, you need to grow a thick skin. I know that's hard for Canadians to understand, but America is a much more tough country. We don't want the government speech policing us. It's why the KKK haven't been censored yet. It's also why the opposite of the KKK (minorities) are more attracted to America than they are to Canada.
America believes in small government; Canada believes in speech codes.
->Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
Why not? People have made jokes about me being bi but I don't get offended by them because I'm not an ancom. It's just woke straight liberals and woke alphabet morons from silicon valley using alphabet people as props to coerce speech and it's so annoying.
If someone uses the term "faggot", I don't consider this to be bad and you'd figure it would effect me, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Grow a thick skin. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I used to be bi (I told people that I was bi when I was) and if someone called me a faggot then, I wouldn't be offended because I have a thick skin. Thin skins lead to the 1st amendment being eroded.
I have no problem with slurs like the n-words, fa****, fuck, shit, or the derogatory term for Jewish people. People need to grow thick skins. The people that get outraged at the N word are often corporate dems and radical ancoms like theweakredge.
I'm very socially conservative on issues like abortion and sex, but if you accept this debate, you're a misogynist; there's literally no other word for it.
"Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
Sounds a lot to me like,
"Some men should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
If a guy is unwilling to sacrifice for his kids, he's a deadbeat. If a woman is unwilling to sacrifice for her kids, it's viewed as female empowerment.
"A long-term Antarctica city will kill millions of people due to flood because of ice caps melting. Unless it is a colony large enough to house the entirety of a large country, the costs outweighs the benefits."
Antarctica isn't melting that much, especially near the south pole. The record high for the south pole isn't even at 0 degrees Celsius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet states Antartica has 26.5 million(26500000) cubic kilometers of ice and(https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html) states Antarctica is only losing 100 cubic kilometers of ice per year since 2002. This means at the current rate ice is melting in Antartica, it would take 265000 years to melt all of the ice. If Ice was melting 10x as quickly, it would take about 26500 years to melt all the ice.
"The running of NYC saves much many more people than kills, based on the structures. Capital child workers not counted."
How? And if it does, how is some 10 million person city in Antartica any different?
"The running of NYC saves much many more people than kills, based on the structures. Capital child workers not counted."
There are buildings in Antarctica that have adapted to rising snow levels.
"Unless you are building on the edge, in that case, it is just a very cold windy city, which still isn't desirable."
There are people who like the cold that would be fine with living there.
Antartica is more habitable than mars is, so I'd rather send people to Antartica to colonize than to Mars.
How would some 10 million person city on the south pole lead to Antartic ice caps melting? I mean, nobody is saying that because NYC pollutes a lot, that means that NYC shouldn't exist.
Moreover, Antartica is very windy, so it's possible that wind power can power any city we put on the continent.
To better prepare us for colonizing Mars. If we are to be colonizing this cold planet, it makes sense to get people acclimated to the extreme cold first.
I disagree, but per usual, I don't have the time or energy to debate.
I think we should focus on our current planet and not planets with an uninhabitable landscape (which might become habitable, but only with significant amounts of money spent that I don't feel like paying).
I’m not saying most Americans are ancap. But I am saying that if the typical American is fine with going speeds that they think should be illegal for others to go, that’s hypocrisy. I know the vast majority of Americans speed and are fine with it:
Good luck convincing the 99% of Americans who willingly speed that they should go the speed limit. Americans prefer their freedom to government rules more frequently than the average global person.
The odds are extremely small. Not everything that has a less than 1% chance of killing you should be banned. But given that you probably speed, if you wish for others to follow that law, your probably a hypocrite.
If Aesthetic Beauty shouldn't matter, are you fine with dating a 75 year old? I mean, he's ugly but if that doesn't matter, would you be willing to date him?
Some laws you should follow; some I don't care if you do. Anti murder laws are laws you should obey. However if you want to break the law by speeding, I don't care.
Regean was and is a popular leader. The only person that won 98% of the states while America was a 50 state country. It's not like I'm quoting Hitler. Regan was scared of drugs and I disagree with this fear. But accusing him of being a racist is a stretch, especially when he was more pro immigrant than what any modern democrat has the guts to be. He was a supporter of open borders and this is why he was able to win California and New York in addition to red states.
“ You should care though, it means I have something you will only get by paying someone.”
You got roasted. I could get a girlfriend, but I’m not interested.
I have positive thoughts about veganism. I don’t believe it should be mandated, but I would like for a law to exist where all companies that make meat are required to go from 100% meat to 99.5% meat, .5% plant protein. And then increase the plant percentage by .5% per year so in 200 years, we aren’t killing animals for food anymore. I’ve asked 3 people their thought on this idea, and they all like it, so I think it can take off.
When homosexuals were killed, it was a product of the time. When homosexuality was legalized, the times changed. When conquering other countries is the norm, it’s a product of the time. When conquering other countries doesn’t happen anymore, then the times have changed. But Israel has owned its land for a long time now. A one state solution for Israel will produce the same effect as a one state solution for Palestine.
The difference between thieves robbing and countries invading is every country to this day is to an extent built on stolen land. All the countries where Rome invaded got independence and stole the land from the Romans. The same is true for China. The same is true for America and the African countries. In a world where everyone is a thief, theft is legal. In a world where stealing land is the norm, stealing land is legal. The UN tried to put a stop to it since stealing land usually results in death. But it’s always happened, and it probably will continue to happen unless the world becomes one nation and then there are no more wars over land because everyone would live in the same country. But we are going to have to very homogenized at that point and the world is too different to be the same country unfortunately.
If you’re in agreement with me, then why do you want Israel to get completely returned to Palestine? Me personally, I’m an American so I don’t care what happens to foreign countries. If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would have a bias. But I’m neither. A one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will produce the same result whether that one state is Israel or Palestine. The only difference would be the flag and the name of the country. It’s not like calling the area Palestine is going to result in the land being less Jewish or calling the land Israel will result in people being less Muslim.
“ Imagine if someone took half of your house, why would you be ok with that, how would yo be ok with that, ofcourse you would try to take back the rest of your house. So why should we expect the Palestinians to be ok with that? It's the exact same logic.”
I’m just courious as to how far this argument goes. The Arabs invaded the Berber house a long time ago. Should all the Arabs in Morocco go back to Saudi Arabia. Should all the non native Americans living in America get sent back to their home country?
Borders are very fluid over the course of thousands of years. It’s not considered theft the same way as if a bunch of thieves started robbing each other.
I agree. I would go even so far as to support open borders for exclusively blue counties and the standard status quo process for exclusively red counties. If blue counties don't want to deport undocumented immigrants, they can have them. All 1.2 billion of them (the number of people that would come into America if America was the first country to open up it's borders).
Are you vegan or vegetarian?
Life in jail isn’t enough, but the death penalty doesn’t help the victims.
That’s why I propose the Stanton penalty for murderers and rapists; this consists of 3 things:
1) Life in jail.
2)Hard labor fixing the roads of the greatest country the simulation overlords ever created so America can have the best infrastructure in the world. Rape victims get $200,000 in restitution that the hard labor generates and the families of murder victims get $250,000.
3) Surgical castration, as a deterrent.
If there is a false conviction, the accused gets freed and paid for their trauma. But if they are guilty, then they absolutely deserve the toughest punishment short of death.
Nobody is advocating for FORCING the poor to sell their organs. But it should be a right. The poor know what is better for them than the government. Their body, their choice.
Are you vegetarian or vegan?
You've done plenty of Twitch streams without a mask, you hypocrite.
Are you transgender? Most cisgender people wouldn't post this as a debate.
Gays and Bisexual men are more likely to get HIV from their promiscuous sex. This would be akin to saying that "On average, one is better off not being promiscuous" which is accurate.
Transgenders often have to pay for a surgery that's expensive. But this is akin to saying, "On average, one is better off not needing glasses" because glasses are also an expense.
I want a country where anti-communist America loving undocumented immigrants are allowed to defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns while sipping on a cold beer with some hot 18-year-old supermodels with big tits and ass in the background and a kickass pickup truck that has a bumper sticker that reads, "Stanton 2020, Make America Debt Free" that they don't have to pay property tax on.
#'Murica Fuck yeah!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQRiO1ihcQA
I agree.
I agree.
If you don’t have a plan for the school system to change, don’t complain about it.
->Coerce speech how?
By censoring words they don't like.
->I don't see the problem with this.
Because your an SJW.
->Someone asking to not be called words that have been used to oppress and degrade them for centuries doesn't mean they have thin skin; people have the right to not want to be called derogatory terms and to think you're a bad person if you continue to do so/don't believe in that right.
If someone uses a word to degrade you, you need to grow a thick skin. I know that's hard for Canadians to understand, but America is a much more tough country. We don't want the government speech policing us. It's why the KKK haven't been censored yet. It's also why the opposite of the KKK (minorities) are more attracted to America than they are to Canada.
America believes in small government; Canada believes in speech codes.
->99% of what you hear has been said before. In turn, 99% of that is shaped by influences around the speaker
Was this said before?
->Claiming to formerly be a member of the LGBTQ+ community doesn't give you validity points here.
Why not? People have made jokes about me being bi but I don't get offended by them because I'm not an ancom. It's just woke straight liberals and woke alphabet morons from silicon valley using alphabet people as props to coerce speech and it's so annoying.
If someone uses the term "faggot", I don't consider this to be bad and you'd figure it would effect me, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Grow a thick skin. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
I used to be bi (I told people that I was bi when I was) and if someone called me a faggot then, I wouldn't be offended because I have a thick skin. Thin skins lead to the 1st amendment being eroded.
I have no problem with slurs like the n-words, fa****, fuck, shit, or the derogatory term for Jewish people. People need to grow thick skins. The people that get outraged at the N word are often corporate dems and radical ancoms like theweakredge.
Every single person who thinks the school system is flawed should have a plan as to how they would change it.
I disagree, but I'm too lazy to take this debate.
So your playing Devil's advocate.
I'm very socially conservative on issues like abortion and sex, but if you accept this debate, you're a misogynist; there's literally no other word for it.
Who thinks oromagi is going to lose this debate?
Good luck finding anyone to take this debate.
Ukraine vs Ukraine (if either one changes their profile pic, people won't get this joke).
"Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
Sounds a lot to me like,
"Some men should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
If a guy is unwilling to sacrifice for his kids, he's a deadbeat. If a woman is unwilling to sacrifice for her kids, it's viewed as female empowerment.
Voting is too hard.
There are video debates, but I think it should be people's choice on what to use for arguments.
Pee doesn't evaporate in our lungs. Your a male; you would know that.
Aren't you using social media right now?
I don't have the time or the energy to do a formal debate. Sorry.
"A long-term Antarctica city will kill millions of people due to flood because of ice caps melting. Unless it is a colony large enough to house the entirety of a large country, the costs outweighs the benefits."
Antarctica isn't melting that much, especially near the south pole. The record high for the south pole isn't even at 0 degrees Celsius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet states Antartica has 26.5 million(26500000) cubic kilometers of ice and(https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html) states Antarctica is only losing 100 cubic kilometers of ice per year since 2002. This means at the current rate ice is melting in Antartica, it would take 265000 years to melt all of the ice. If Ice was melting 10x as quickly, it would take about 26500 years to melt all the ice.
"The running of NYC saves much many more people than kills, based on the structures. Capital child workers not counted."
How? And if it does, how is some 10 million person city in Antartica any different?
"The running of NYC saves much many more people than kills, based on the structures. Capital child workers not counted."
There are buildings in Antarctica that have adapted to rising snow levels.
"Unless you are building on the edge, in that case, it is just a very cold windy city, which still isn't desirable."
There are people who like the cold that would be fine with living there.
Antartica is more habitable than mars is, so I'd rather send people to Antartica to colonize than to Mars.
How would some 10 million person city on the south pole lead to Antartic ice caps melting? I mean, nobody is saying that because NYC pollutes a lot, that means that NYC shouldn't exist.
Moreover, Antartica is very windy, so it's possible that wind power can power any city we put on the continent.
To better prepare us for colonizing Mars. If we are to be colonizing this cold planet, it makes sense to get people acclimated to the extreme cold first.
We should colonize Antarctica before Mars. It would be easier as Antarctica is more habitable.
I disagree, but per usual, I don't have the time or energy to debate.
I think we should focus on our current planet and not planets with an uninhabitable landscape (which might become habitable, but only with significant amounts of money spent that I don't feel like paying).
I'm interested in what you think of my plan to get the US out of debt:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13C09M6rSyjeQKNWXh_hG-9MreNwat2vEZVfO4E1zZKY/edit#gid=592285639
I’m not saying most Americans are ancap. But I am saying that if the typical American is fine with going speeds that they think should be illegal for others to go, that’s hypocrisy. I know the vast majority of Americans speed and are fine with it:
I strongly disagree with you, but I don't have the time to debate this. Rapists should get life imprisonment with hard labor.
Good luck convincing the 99% of Americans who willingly speed that they should go the speed limit. Americans prefer their freedom to government rules more frequently than the average global person.
The odds are extremely small. Not everything that has a less than 1% chance of killing you should be banned. But given that you probably speed, if you wish for others to follow that law, your probably a hypocrite.
If Aesthetic Beauty shouldn't matter, are you fine with dating a 75 year old? I mean, he's ugly but if that doesn't matter, would you be willing to date him?
Some laws you should follow; some I don't care if you do. Anti murder laws are laws you should obey. However if you want to break the law by speeding, I don't care.
Regean was and is a popular leader. The only person that won 98% of the states while America was a 50 state country. It's not like I'm quoting Hitler. Regan was scared of drugs and I disagree with this fear. But accusing him of being a racist is a stretch, especially when he was more pro immigrant than what any modern democrat has the guts to be. He was a supporter of open borders and this is why he was able to win California and New York in addition to red states.